Share this story

A conservative media company has sued YouTube, saying that the online video giant illegally censors the short videos it produces.

PragerU was founded in 2011 by Dennis Prager, a prominent conservative writer and radio talk show host. The organization is a nonprofit that espouses conservative viewpoints on various issues by means of short, animated videos, which it posts on its own website, as well as its YouTube channel.

"Google/YouTube have represented that their platforms and services are intended to effectuate the exercise free speech among the public," write PragerU lawyers in the organization's complaint (PDF), filed Monday. "As applied to PragerU, Google/YouTube use their restricted mode filtering not to protect younger or sensitive viewers from 'inappropriate' video content, but as a political gag mechanism to silence PragerU."

PragerU says that at least 37 of its videos continue to be censored by "restricted mode filtering," which limits views based on certain characteristics, including the age of the viewer. Those videos include "educational content ranging from the legal creation of Israel and the history of the Korean War, to the idea of diversity of thought on college campuses."

YouTube's actions are "absurd, arbitrary, capricious, and devoid of any rational basis," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit cites cases like Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the California Supreme Court allowed protesters to pass out leaflets on mall property, even though they were advocating for boycotts of certain stores.

Another precedent PragerU points to is Marsh v. Alabama, a US Supreme Court case in which a Jehovah's Witness was handing out religious pamphlets on the sidewalk in Chickasaw, a privately owned "company town" near Mobile. The high court ruled that Grace Marsh had a right to hand out pamphlets even though the sidewalk she stood on was owned by a private corporation.

The lawsuit includes a long list of PragerU videos that have been restricted or "demonetized" by YouTube, and it lists videos on similar topics that have not been restricted. For instance, PragerU claims its YouTube video "Are the police racist?" was restricted or demonetized, but it points to a list of six other videos related to police behavior and racism that weren't restricted.

Conservatives aren't the only ones who feel that YouTube has censored or demonetized their videos. Earlier this year, a British YouTuber who made videos with a "feminist and queer perspective" complained that her videos were being filtered into a restricted mode and were marked as "potentially inappropriate content."

"We believe they are engaging in an arbitrary and capricious use of their ‘restricted mode’ and ‘demonetization’ to restrict conservative political thought," said PragerU founder Dennis Prager in a statement (PDF) about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that YouTube's policy violates the First Amendment, the California Constitution's right to free speech and California civil rights laws, and the Lanham Act, which bars unfair competition.

Is the government ordering the filtering? If not, then no, it doesn't.

+9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999

Pretty much.

Now, that said, I think the companies might be violating the spirit of free speech which they claim to have embraced for those platforms. Although I have no problem with them letting certain speakers be restricted or even kicking them off. Just because the government can't shut you up doesn't mean other people in this country/world can't shut you up on behalf of the rest of us.

Although I really much prefer Cloudflares version, that single instance not withstanding for that one website being kicked off. A platform which purports to say "we're neutral" should make much more of an effort to be true neutral (e.g. Google, Facebook, Twitter).

No. The "spirit of free speech" is also the spirit of free association; you can say what you want, but we won't force anyone to give you a soapbox if they don't want to.

If one entity has enough market power to silence others on its own, and they wield that power abusively, that's not a free speech problem. It's an antitrust problem. The solution is to enforce antitrust laws and promote market competition.

The only possible problem here is that YouTube, possibly, is the only viable soapbox. Even if you accept that to be true, we solve this problem by creating a better market for soapboxes, not forcing any soapbox owner to do business with people. You could have 1,000 soapboxes, and if the owners of all of them want to refuse to lend them to Nazis, that's 1,000 individual cases of their freedom of association (to not associate with Nazis) at work.

Say what you just said without using the current Boogeyman of the week and see how people agree with you.

I'll say it about contexts where I hate to say it. Example: A sports team refusing to sign a football player because of his pre-game "free speech" activities. This is legal. I don't like it, not when it's protesting a noble cause like racial inequality, but it's legal. Each individual football team has a right not to allow someone on their team they don't like.

Now, if all 32 football teams get together and form a cartel and use their combined market power to deliberately suppress someone from an entire market... that's an antitrust problem. But it's still not a free speech problem.

Conservatives frequently play the victim and rarely understand the first amendment.

Yeah, so two points on that:

Free speech means that the government can't arrest you, fine you, lock you up, or torture you into repentance for what you say. Speech has consequences, and there is no freedom from those. If what you say makes everybody else shun you and say "we don't want you in our forum", then that's just too bad for you.

And, claiming "I deserve this platform because FREE SPEECH!" is not exactly a point in your favour. If the most compelling thing about what you have to say is that it is not literally illegal to say it..... and you can't come up with any better argument than that..... well, then, maybe your position isn't quite as sound in reality as it seemed when it appeared in your head.

Scroll to page 21 in the PDF for links to actual videos, so you can judge yourself.

To be honest they have a point insofar that YouTube has been restricting or demonetizing videos perhaps a bit too eagerly, but this is hardly a "conservative" problem; it affects all political content. I think something about 400 hours if video gets uploaded *PER SECOND*. Moderating all that is a huge challenge.

The entire suit is also kinda hypocritical given their "government should do as little as possible, power to the companies/individuals". Don't like YouTube: go somewhere else.

If the platform is not either government owned or government operated, Google can censor to it's heart's content. You have the right to speak, and they have the right to not lend you use of their platform.

I'm conservative and I agree with this except that Google and Youtube are a monopoly right now and considering they were funded by the department of defense and continue receiving subsidies today they are liable for constitutional violations.

Neither Google nor Youtube is a monopoly. Both have large market share, but both also have plenty of viable (if smaller) competitors. There's nothing stopping you from searching with Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc. or running your email through Outlook, Fastmail, etc. or posting your videos to Vimeo, Dailymotion, etc.Can you provide a source for the claim that the US government is subsidizing either entity?

I'm conservative and I agree with this except that Google and Youtube are a monopoly right now and considering they were funded by the department of defense and continue receiving subsidies today they are liable for constitutional violations.

Is "conservative" the best way to describe this group? I feel these days it's starting to mean having an opinion that doesn't match reality (when it shouldn't).

If you have watched their videos, are they factually correct?

If they are misleading or claiming something is true when it is patently not then I could understand the videos being banned. i.e. I would support banning a video denying the Holocaust happened or that the Earth is flat.

Apparently, between other things, they are posting videos pushing climate change denial, or at the very least climate change doubt. Also religion.

I didn't watch any of their videos, but I watch a channel dedicated to debunking climate change denial (potholer54), and it recently analyzed one of their videos about climate change. And of course, the PragerU video was full of crap:

They may not have a legal leg to stand on, but I think the merits of the argument are still worth considering. Just because there's currently no law (much less a constitutional requirement) to limit what a service like YouTube (or Twitter or Facebook) can take down, doesn't mean there shouldn't be.

Suppose that Google decided to demote websites with content that is critical of Google. Sure, you could still post those articles -- and lose a substantial fraction of your audience. Where does that leave an independent media? Less severely, they could still demote/demonitize videos on YouTube talking about the Pixel 2 XL's problems (while promoting reviews that report favorably). You could try and apply antitrust regulation, but that doesn't magically create BingTube, or make Bing suck any less (despite Microsoft's massive war chest). Even so, there's no reason Bing couldn't apply similar censorship related to Microsoft's products. Do I then want to read about the new Pixel on Bing and the new Windows on Google?

It's easy to rally behind censorship of obviously terribly biased content. But YouTube is clearly applying similar demonitization to LGBTQ videos -- and, while it's not illegal to discriminate against that group (see how that goes?), there's something about the world's largest tech company saying that talking about LGBTQ issues is inappropriate and potentially offensive.

There's a ton of inappropriate and offensive content on the internet. It's not clear why YouTube needs to be a battlefront. Not least because it gives organizations like PragerU more press and attention that they should get.

the problem is that our public forum has shifted from the street corners in public squares to the Internet.

I'm all for allowing private companies to censor, but when the Internet IS the public forum, how can we allow private companies so much control? IMHO it's heading down a slippery slope...

Not really. Before the internet most people got their news from a few newspapers, TV, and radio stations. All of which were heavily curated. Even with sites like Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter controlling huge swaths of the internet, it's still far easier to get your statement out on the internet than more traditional forms of media. The street corner hasn't been the primary "public forum" since the printing press was invented.

But I do think that such companies have an obligation to allow any (legal) content IF they want to bill themselves as being "neutral" or "open" content platforms, or to qualify for "service provider" type protections.

They may not have a legal leg to stand on, but I think the merits of the argument are still worth considering. Just because there's currently no law (much less a constitutional requirement) to limit what a service like YouTube (or Twitter or Facebook) can take down, doesn't mean there shouldn't be...

YouTube has been demonetising just about every video by anyone who is open about being LGBT, even if the video has been completely unrelated, like a vlog about eating lunch or something. On the other hand, they were running PragerU videos ranting about trans people as ads in front of other videos. Those rants were still up last time I looked, despite being reported for hate speech by many people. They don't seem very censored to me.

Are you talking about paid commercials? I can see how there might be two totally separate entities evaluating content and ads, one censoring the other not.

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

In any case freedom of speech isn't complete.For example, nobody is free to show their pudenda to my grandkid and ask for a scratch, just as I am somewhat not free to threaten to remove something from that person.Edit didn't change complete to absolute.

the government has ruled in the past that yes, private organizations have to allow people to protest, pass out leaflets, etc., unless I am missing something.

Correct. Private properties that establish free and open spaces for the public, such as shopping malls, have certain limitations in who they can deny access to. By becoming a quasi-public area, they relinquish some of their private property rights.

I would expect that the plaintiff's lawyers will argue that YouTube has become a public forum, and that as such, they should have greater limits on how they can moderate speech, especially in light of some of the greater speech protections that California offers. But even if a judge agrees that YouTube is a public forum, do the actions of YouTube's moderation rise to the level of suppression? You can still see the protestors handing out leaflets if you care to look around the screen.

Is the government ordering the filtering? If not, then no, it doesn't.

Well, it's not quite that simple. YouTube could not block videos simply because the submitter was black, etc. for exactly the same reasons why restaurants cannot deny serving black patrons. Refusing service to someone based on who they are is different from refusing service to someone based on what they do. That's holds true for YouTube as well.

I don't think that's why he's being blocked, but it's not as simple to say that freedom of expression protections don't apply from any private enterprise. USSC is about to hear the case of the baker that refused to make a cake for a gay couple. The entire case centers around freedom of expression. None of the parties are part the government.

That is entirely different as the CLASS of person being discriminated against is protected. You can't open a coffee shop that serves whites only. You can open one that refuses to serve republicans.

1. The "it's effectively a public square/utility" is the argument spammers used against spam filters. If that argument holds here, it holds for the spammers too. It would be illegal to refuse to deliver spam email, or to delete spam comments because it interferes with the spammer's "free speech".

2. YouTube costs a huge amount of money to run, in server space and bandwidth, and even pays some video producers money. This is offset by money it gets from advertisers. The recent demonetization wave was triggered by advertisers who don't want to have their ad appearing along with someone screaming the n-word. (Though of course YouTube overreacted and demonetized way too many.) If YouTube is going to be required to carry any video regardless of content, who's going to pay for it? Would companies be compelled to place ads on these videos too? Can you compel YouTube to pay you a certain amount, regardless of what they think your videos are worth?

3. There's nothing to stop anyone from hosting their own videos, as long as they're willing to undertake the cost.

4. Why only YouTube? If the principle is "free speech" it should apply to all websites. Stormfront should be required to post articles about how great Jews are.

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

You are mixing a few separate issues here. Google being private matters because, generally speaking, the First Amendment only applies to *government* restricting speech (and very originally, it only applied to the *federal* government, until I believe the 14th Amendment).

The "common carrier" idea is a concept that is, when it comes to Google and the like, not enshrined in any law whatsoever. Basically, it applies to landline phone service (and to some extent cellular), but little else.

It is fascinating to witness the thundering herd of liberals who are a-ok with speech being silenced by anyone

The snowflake safe space police pale in comparison to the Puritan vice police. Arguably, the "think of the children" crowd, which tends to skew politically to the right, has done more to suppress speech in this country than any other force.

Is "conservative" the best way to describe this group? I feel these days it's starting to mean having an opinion that doesn't match reality (when it shouldn't).

If you have watched their videos, are they factually correct?

If they are misleading or claiming something is true when it is patently not then I could understand the videos being banned. i.e. I would support banning a video denying the Holocaust happened or that the Earth is flat.

Apparently, between other things, they are posting videos pushing climate change denial, or at the very least climate change doubt. Also religion.

I didn't watch any of their videos, but I watch a channel dedicated to debunking climate change denial (potholer54), and it recently analyzed one of their videos about climate change. And of course, the PragerU video was full of crap:

If the platform is not either government owned or government operated, Google can censor to it's heart's content. You have the right to speak, and they have the right to not lend you use of their platform.

I'm conservative and I agree with this except that Google and Youtube are a monopoly right now and considering they were funded by the department of defense and continue receiving subsidies today they are liable for constitutional violations.

YouTube is not a monoply. Even if it were the only streaming service of it's kind, just because you make something which no one else makes does not give you a monopoly. It becomes a monopoly once there is a system in place ensuring you are the only once who makes/provides said thing.

Well the first amendment argument is obviously silly, but the suit also throws out a bunch of random California laws and CA is full of screwy things like this. So maybe he has a point.

The cases appear to be related to the “Pruneyard” rule that requires operators of a commercial space like a mall to allow peaceful demonstrations, subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place, and method.

I’m not aware of any precedent that requires such a demonstrator to be allowed to monetize their activity.

I think this is the crux of the issue that most of the above commenters are missing. This seems like a classic scatter-shot + kitchen sink lawsuit to generate headlines, but there might be a sliver (as small as that is) of truth in there that should legitimately be looked at by the courts. That doesn't mean that it's not absurd to state that a private company can restrict your first amendment rights, but based on the case-law (including a US Supreme Court case referenced in the article) there are nuances that should be addressed in the new digital universe.

The irony in this is that the same people who have no problem about restricting other people's freedom of expression and legal rights will no doubt jump on this band-wagon of an 'anti-conservative crusade'

IANAL, just a recreational court-watcher.Agreed. This case might have marginally more merit than most of the comments seem to assume. The underlying principle established in Marsh v. Alabama is that, as you progressively open your private property to public use, your dominion over that public property becomes progressively circumscribed by the the rights of the public you have opened it to. This is an important foundation for many of the 14th amendment protections that touch on non-governmental spheres, and it's important not to short-sell it just because the party in question here is distasteful: to be just, the law must be dispassionate enough to protect both scoundrels and saints, if the claim is sound.

The California case is, to my limited understanding, the case law basis of free speech zones in privately owned public accommodations in California. Several other states have established something silimar.

Still, I doubt it will hold up: any remedy I can think of would effectively create something in the spirit of a public access requirement. And that would effectively gut the Midwest Video Decision.

I'm not about to go read the latest YouTube ToS again, but they'll continue to have this accusation thrown at them again and again until they find a way to equally applying them across the board.

I'm not at all convinced they aren't applying their rules equally across the board. The problem seems to be those who are utterly convinced that they're being targeted, without a single shred of evidence that there's anything special about their treatment relative to others.

They clearly aren't. If somebody like David Rubin has videos demonetized because of "adult topics" like terrorism, why isn't Fox or CNN's channels getting demonetized?

Companies like Fox and CNN have their own ad deals separate from the plebs on Youtube. That's how Kimmels monologue on the Las Vegas shooting --which trended to #1-- had ads while a video that would have donated all the ad revenue to charity from a Youtuber, got no ads.

They're apparently trying to close this loophole so that the rules are equal but I'll believe it when I see it.

PragerU will win. It's equivalent to YouTube deleting or not allowing black people to post on their site. It's not that complicated. Unless your a lefty of course.

Well I'm a rightie, and this is an incredibly stupid argument. You have no idea what you're talking about and you should be embarrassed to not understand the difference between a protected class and "a specific opinion".

Imagine if phone companies could deny you service because they didn't like what you said on the phone.

Get back to us when YouTube becomes a public utility.

Private companies BECOME public utilities to stop this sort of behavior. Many laws were passed back in the good old days to force AT&T to serve customers they didn't care to serve.

I have no idea if a court can or could declare these companies like Youtube and Facebook public utilities, but I'm guessing if they don't, laws will be passed to prevent them from denial of services for any reason than actually breaking laws.

If you just don't like what someone has to say, it's easy enough to block them. I wish I could block sales calls on my phone.

And until those laws are passed or YouTube becomes a public utility, it is still a private company... with the right to selectively refuse service.

I have an honest question. I fear it will be perceived as trolling, I'm honestly questioning though.

When I read the comment forums here at ARS on some of these controversial issues, one of the common responses I *think* I see is the idea that since Google is a private company, they have the right to host/promote whatever they want; that the demands of free speech are not valid because it's not the government we're talking about here. This was a common opinion regarding the nazi dude's frustrations getting hosted or whatever recently.

On the flip side is the common carrier ideas. Provide a service, provide it to everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a government bus or a private bus company any one can sit in your bus and sit where they want. Same with the baker controversies. You're a baker. You don't get to decide who you bake cakes for based on what they do in their bedroom.

These two view points seem inconsistent to me. What is the clarification I am missing.

And another question, as long as I'm already in long post mode... One of the recurring themes with legislating that "content" transporters like ISPs and Googles (as opposed to content creators) can't be held responsible for what they host, is the complaint that it would cost too much and be prohibitive to be held responsible for the legality of the content they transport. But as a company like google or other internet service exercises their right to decide who they do business with and who they don't, don't they run the risk of the invalidating the claim? Can't the judge come back and say "you apparently DO have the bandwidth to police your content when it's in the interest of your business model, but not the laws of the land?"

The difference between ISPs/common carriers and something like YouTube is that ISP's are providing a service, which people feel is a utility- internet access is rather comparable to power, plumbing, or telephone service. We pay ISP's for access to the internet, so we can reach the content hosted by other companies. Internet access is the road, not the destination. YouTube (or Twitter, Facebook, etc) are the destinations in this metaphor. People aren't paying for the content when purchasing the internet connection from their ISP, they're paying for access to content providers, who we're often also paying for their content, either directly or from ads. We therefore have an issue when the intermediary tries to charge extra, based on what content we're accessing over their road.

On the other hand, our relationship with YouTube/Twitter/Facebook/etc is more like our relationship with a store- they provide content, which we pay for in some way. Walmart can choose what products it carries, and I have the option to buy what they're selling or shop elsewhere. Trying to say YouTube has to host a video is basically saying that Walmart has to sell your craft jewelry or that blockbuster has to rent out your indie film.

For your second question, safe harbor is basically saying that YouTube can host user-created content without assuming liability if users upload illegal content, so long as they remove it if notified. The content is still illegal, but the crime is on the uploader, not on Google. Google is free to remove any content that they feel is offensive, and they can choose to not do business with people, they just can't actively curate the content- if a moderator has to watch and approve a video before it's uploaded to the site, Google loses safe harbor, but if Google doesn't like your video for some reason after you uploaded it, they're free to not host it.

None of this really even comes into play in this situation, though- the videos in question are still available on YouTube, they just have a warning message on them, and may or may not pass add revenue onto the creator (which are 2 different things, although they seem to have been conflated somewhere here). Google is still hosting the videos for anyone interested to watch, even though they have no more requirement to host them than Redbox does to rent out your indie film or Barnes and Noble does to sell your book.